Karahan Tepe

241

Documenta Praehistorica XXXVIII (2011)

Karahan Tepe> a new cultural centrein the Urfa area in Turkey

Bahattin ÇelikDepartment of Archaeology, University of Harran, S‚ anlıurfa, TR

[email protected]

Introduction

Karahan Tepe settlement was first discovered in1997, but was surveyed in 2000 and again in 2011within the course of the Sanlıurfa City Cultural In-ventory. The settlements are located within theboundaries of Sanlıurfa (ancient name Edessa), acity in southeast Turkey. The settlement lies on aplateau known as the Tektek Mountains (TektekDagları) 63km east of Sanlıurfa. Like Göbekli Tepe,Hamzan Tepe and Sanlıurfa Yeni Mahalle PPN (Pre-Pottery Neolithic period) settlements located aroundthe Harran Plain in the Urfa Region, Karahan Tepeis also a PPN settlement located on a high plateaufoot on the eastern side of Harran Plain.

During the surveys on Karahan Tepe in 2000, basin-like pools carved in bedrock and a considerable num-ber of tools of flint, obsidian, river pebble, and lime-stone were discovered. The finds show that the set-tlement was in use in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic pe-riod. Furthermore, there were many T-shaped pil-

lars, which are also familiar from Nevali Çori, SeferTepe, Hamzan Tepe and Göbekli Tepe. As a result ofa new survey in 2011, a new snake-shaped reliefwas found carved on a T-shaped pillar, of which halfwas formerly revealed by illegal excavations.

The settlement at Karahan Tepe is located approxi-mately 705 metres above sea level, at 39° 30’ 22”East, 37° 08’ 15” North. The settlement was locatedin a high region of the Tektek Mountains. The regionconstitutes the southeast end of the Urfa plateauand is a hilly region in terms of geomorphology, ra-ther than being mountainous (Map 1). The lime-stone region is arid and heavily eroded. The settle-ment is located between two rocky hills (Map 2; Fig.1). It extends over an area of 60 000 square me-tres1. Flint and stone limestone layers in molar sha-pes appear 1km east of the settlement. On the otherhand, the nearest basalt source is 15km north ofthe site.

ABSTRACT – In this study, the finds from Karahan Tepe, which have already been published as newsarticles, will be evaluated and compared with those from nearby PPN neighbourhoods in order toreveal their similarities. Of particular interest is a new find, a snake-shaped relief carved on a T-shaped pillar revealed by illegal excavations, and how similar reliefs are known through finds fromGöbekli Tepe.

IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljam najdbe iz Karahan Tepe, ki so bile ∫e objavljene v ≠asopisnih no-vicah, in jih primerjam s tistimi iz bli∫njih sosesk iz obdobja predkerami≠nega neolitika, da bi od-kril njihove podobnosti. Posebno zanimiva je nova najdba reliefa v obliki ka≠e na stebru v obliki ≠r-ke T, ki so ga odkrili z nelegalnimi izkopavanji, in njene podobnosti z reliefi, ki so znani na najdi∏-≠u Göbekli Tepe.

KEY WORDS – Pre-Pottery Neolithic; T-shaped pillar; Urfa; Göbekli Tepe; SeferTepe

1 In a former news article written on Karahan Tepe, this size was incorrectly given as 325 000 m2 (see Çelik 2000b.6).

DOI> 10.4312\dp.38.19

celik.qxd 21/11/2011 10:53 Page 241 (Black plate) a l t e n

Bahattin Çelik

242

It is understood from an examination of the lime-stone and architectural finds that Karahan Tepe wasused as a major settlement during the Pre-PotteryNeolithic period (Çelik 2000b.6–8). The only settle-ment to compare in dimensions with this major sitewhich lies on the eastern edge of Harran plain is Gö-bekli Tepe, which is three times bigger (Beile-Bohnet al. 1998; Schmidt 1995). Karahan Tepe settlementwas probably in a good location for setting trapsand hunting, due to its proximity to Harran Plain,and having impassable valleys nearby in the EarlyHolocene period (Figs. 2 and 3). At the settlement,flint stone finds can be seen extensively over thewhole area, numbering approximately 50 per 1m2.

Karahan Tepe seems to have been inhabited onlyduring the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. Finds are ca-tegorised as architectural elements, finds with de-pictions and small finds. The small finds comprisetools made of flint and obsidian, chisels and adzesmade of river pebble, beads, stone pot fragments,grind stones, and pestles. There are 617 small findsand 274 architectural finds; 266 of the architecturalfinds are in-situ T-shaped pillars (Çelik 2000b.4).

Pre-Pottery Neolithic assemblage in KarahanTepe

Architectural elementsIn Karahan Tepe, there is a considerable number ofarchitectural finds, many of which have been pre-served in good condition. In the east of the settle-ment, almost the whole area apart from what wasused for agriculture and which is full of rocks, is co-vered with T-shaped pillars which are still in-situ,with only the top 50–60cm visible on the surface(Fig. 4). These pillars were erected in rows, and spa-ced 1.5–2 metres apart. Some pillars revealed byillegal excavations are between 1 and 2m high, be-tween 20 and 25cm thick, and between 90 and 50cmwide (Çelik 2000b.4–6). Many have deep flutes ontheir sides (Hauptmann 1991/92.28). The upperparts of the Neolithic wall and wall corners can beseen clearly in patches. Groups of circular cavitieson rock surfaces with a diameter of 30cm and adepth of 10–15cm, which are also familiar from Gö-bekli Tepe and Hamzan Tepe, can also be seen hereas examples of the technique of pool carving (Çelik2010.Fig. 6; Beile-Bohn et al. 1998.Abb. 20) (Fig. 5).

A T-shaped rock part ready to be removed from thebedrock on the west foot of the settlement and on a30 degree slope was found in what we think was aquarry for producing T-shaped pillars (Fig. 6). This

pillar is approximately 4.5m high, 1.5m wide and80cm thick. A similar pillar which is ready to be re-moved was found in Göbekli Tepe. This pillar out-line, with a height of 7m and an upper part of 3m,is twice as big as the pillar outline at Karahan Tepe(DAI 1997.552, Fig. 1; Schmidt 1998.4). This is aquite practical technique, with roughly chiselling onthe side of the rock to produce a T shape, whilst car-ving the other side 40cm wide and 1m deep. Thesolid pillar separated from the bedrock with thistechnique can easily be removed from the quarryalso with the help of a slope. The quarry is locatedimmediately on the western edge of the settlement.

In the settlement, there are no pillars higher thanthe one in the quarry. However, such large pillarsmay be found at lower levels. Still, it should be no-ted that the pillars found at Göbekli Tepe are alsonot close to this height of 7 metres. This shows thatthe pillars in the quarry were scaled down to 1/3proportion. There is a high possibility of finding pil-lars with a height of 3m during excavations. Althoughno terrazzo floors have been found, they are expe-cted to be found at lower levels. However, a stair-case-like remnant was found on the east side of aplain rock which is still part of the settlement.

Reliefs and sculpturesThe finds with depictions on limestone from the set-tlement consist of two snake reliefs carved on thesides of pillars, one piece from a carved and orna-

Map 1. The site at Karahan Tepe.

Karahan Tepe> a new cultural centre in the Urfa area in Turkey

243

mented pillar, one piece from a male statue, onebird-shaped relief, and three pieces of a stele withreliefs on which human-shaped arms can be seen.

In the east of the ruins, the farmland was also dis-turbed by illegal excavations. There is a pair of pil-lars, side by side, 1.5m apart (Fig. 7). On one side ofone of these pillars, there is a 70cm snake relief(Figs. 8, 9 and 10) with a round head and curledbody, which probably continued to the broken partof the pillar (Çelik 2000b.Fig. 1). The snake relief onthe short side of the pillar is similar to those foundon totem poles in Göbekli Tepe, and the snakes ongrooving stones and on flat stone plaques from Jerfel Ahmar (Stordeur et al. 1996.Fig. 5; Schmidt &Schmidt 2010.Fig. 1b; Schmidt 2010.Fig. 18). Thedimensions of this pillar, the lower part of which isbroken, are 1.28 x 75 x 21cm. Opposite the exam-ple with the snake relief is a second pillar – foundin 2011 – with a barely distinguishable snake reliefon one side (Fig. 11). Only the head of the snake ina triangular form is visible, as only the top part ofthe pillar was revealed by illegal excavations. Simi-lar snake reliefs are known from the upper parts ofpillars and statues in Göbekli Tepe and Nevali Çorisettlements (Schmidt 2004.Abb. 3, 6; Hauptmann1999a.Fig. 10). These two pillars are the same sizeas the pillars found at the ‘Löwenpfeilergabäude’structure in Göbekli Tepe (Beile-Bohn et al. 1998).This shows that the pillars at Karahan Tepe mightwell be contemporary at least with the architecture

of the Göbekli Tepe II layer. Furthermore, they arealready the same size as the in-situ pillars revealedat the surface level at Göbekli Tepe (Çelik 2000b.7).

Another group of surface finds comprises animal fi-gures carved on a piece of a pillar (Fig. 12a, b). Onthe existing 40cm surface of 86cm long stone, thehead and forelegs of a rabbit, the hind legs and tailof a gazelle, and the hind legs of an unidentified ani-mal are visible (Çelik 2000b.Fig. 2). Another piece,part of a wide, fluted pillar, has an animal leg in re-lief on both sides – the only example of this type tobe found in the region (Fig. 14). Due to the high re-lief figure of a lion on a pillar at Göbekli Tepe, foundin 2006, the mystery of the pieces found at KarahanTepe has been resolved (Schmidt 2008.Abb. 2g).These stones are probably fragments of reliefs madeon pillars with high relief technique. Two similar stelepieces were also found with animal reliefs (Fig. 15).

Moreover, an anthropomorphic statue with a phal-lus, which has the same characteristics as a Yeni Ma-halle sculpture, was found (Fig. 16). This new find isan interesting example in having the same featuresas statues found at Göbekli Tepe and Yeni Mahalle(Çelik 2000a.4–6; 2007.Fig. 4).

Small findsThere is a total of 617 small finds from KarahanTepe. The flaked stone assemblage consists of flintand obsidian pieces, with 541 flint (87.7%) and 50obsidian finds (8.1%) – a total of 591 (95.8%). Otherfinds are: 4 pieces of basalt pestles (0.65%); 7 piecesof flat axes made of river pebbles (1.13%); 6 piecesof stone bowls (0.97%); 7 pieces of stone beads(1.13%); 1 piece of stone object (0. 16%) and 1 pieceof a bone object (0.16%).

There is also a fragment of a jar carved from lime-stone and familiar from Göbekli Tepe.

Technology and typology of lithics

Plenty of flint and a few obsidian finds were foundat Karahan Tepe; most of these relate to the bladeindustry. The number of Palaeolithic finds is 591, ofwhich 541 are flint, while 50 are obsidian (Tab. 1).

The highest proportion of the flint assemblage areblades. Some are completely preserved, their lengthvaries between 5, 8 and 2.8cm; the width between1.8 and 1.1cm; and the thickness between 0.5 and0.2cm. On the other hand, the length of flakes variesbetween 4 and 2.1cm, while width ranges between

Map 2. Map of Karahan Tepe.


Bahattin Çelik

244

3.7 and 2.5cm, and thickness between 1.4 and0.5cm.

Overall, there are 193 pieces of debitage products,consisting of blades and flakes. The flint tools are re-presented by 294 pieces (54.3%) in the whole groupof flint finds (Tab. 1). There are also 25 pieces of ma-nufacturing waste, 168 pieces of blades, 23 pieces offlakes, 30 pieces of cores and core renewing tools,and one piece of burnt flint among other flint finds.

The flint tools comprised 194 arrowheads, 20 perfo-rators, 40 end scrapers, 30 sickle blades, 8 burins,one hammer, and one bifacial tool. If the flint findsat Karahan Tepe are compared to those from Göbe-kli Tepe, the proportions at Göbekli Tepe are 20%arrowheads, 10% perforators, 17% burins, 11.2%scraper, 15% sickle blades (Schmidt 2001.51–52,Fig. 9; Beile-Bohn et al. 1998.59), while the propor-tions at Karahan Tepe are 66.21% arrowheads,6.82% perforators, 2. 73% burins, 13.66% scrapers,and 10.24% sickle blades (Tab. 2).

As raw material, well-qualified flint stones were used.Surveys have revealed some flint deposits one kilo-metre east of the site. Only two bipolar cores havebeen found.

Regarding the range of colours of the flint finds, 224are grey (41.4%); 60 are light grey (11.1%); 88 aredark grey (16.26%); 42 (7.78%) are brown; 101(18.66%) are light brown, 18 are black (3.32%) and8 (1.48%) are cream/beige.

At Karahan Tepe, there were five pieces of coreswhich are all bipolar (Fig. 17.1–2). They frequentlyhave the form of a naviform core. The existence ofsome blades that are shaped out of a unipolar core,show that bipolar cores were used at the site. How-

ever, in the recent survey, no unipolar cores havebeen found. The blade flaking of bipolar cores va-ries between 1 and 1.5cm. Three pieces of five coreswhich have been examined are broken; only two arewell-prepared.

Among the blades and tools with blade handles theproportions of trapezoid cross-section blades withblade blanks is 91%, while the proportion of triangu-lar cross-section blades is 9%.

At Karahan Tepe, the total of 30 (5.5%) cores andcore rejuvenation fragments is very rare in thewhole group of flint finds. Only five (16.6%) arecores. Apart from these, 9 (30%) pieces of core rene-wing and 16 (53.4%) strap blade fragments werefound (Fig. 17.3). Most of the cores are dark brownand grey; cores of similar colour were found at bothGöbekli Tepe (Beile-Bohn et al. 1998.54) and Neva-li Çori (Schmidt 1988.162).

There are 50 obsidian finds; as a tool, only one endscraper was found among them (Fig. 17.4). Theother obsidian finds are blade fragments, flakes, andwaste. The proportion of obsidian in the find groupis 8.46% (Fig. 17.5–7).

Examining the flint tools in terms of typology, it isclear that there are tool types from the Pre-PotteryNeolithic. Arrowheads constitute the majority. Themost significant of these are Byblos, Nemrik, and As-wad types. There is a total of 194 pieces of arrow-heads; of this number 137 pieces are ‘Byblos’ type(71%); 2 are ‘Aswad’ type (1%); 33 are ‘Nemrik’ type(17%) and the remaining 22 (11%) are unidentified.

Upon examination, it is clear that there are simila-rities between the arrowheads dated from the latephase A to the mid-phase B of the Pre-Pottery Neoli-

thic at the site (Cauvin 1994.78–95).Similar arrowheads were found atGöbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2001a.52,Fig. 10/3, Fig. 11/5) and Mureybet(Cauvin 1994.79)

‘Byblos’ type arrowheadsAt Karahan Tepe, ‘Byblos’ type ar-rowheads are represented by 137items. These have been assessed ac-cording to their retouched types asfalling into six groups. Blades weretaken from both bipolar and unipo-lar cores, due to the fact that someof the directions of the arrowheadsTab. 1. Karahan Tepe flint stone finds (n = 541).


245

are single track, while others aremulti track.

All the arrowheads between type Iand type VI (Figs. 18, 19 and 20.1–7)show similarities with those fromGöbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2001.52, Fig.10.4, 6), Cafer Höyük (Cauvin 1994.Fig. 26.3), Nevali Çori (Schmidt1988.171–174, Abb. 11.1–6, 12.1–3),Chiekh Hassan (Abbes 1993.Fig. 8.10) and Mureybet IVb (Cauvin 1994.Fig. 24.1, 3) These arrowhead are ingeneral classified as Byblos Type,and categorised as early Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Cau-vin 1994.78–79, Fig. 24.2).

‘Nemrik’ type arrowheadsAt Karahan Tepe, only 33 (17%) pieces of such ar-rowhead types were found. While there are 23 exam-ples of intact arrowheads among these, the otherten pieces are broken (Figs. 20.8–12, 21.1–4) Thereare nine on which the direction of blade flaking ofthe arrowhead is single-track, whereas there are 24bi-directional arrowheads. The arrowheads in thisgroup are classified according to their retouchedtypes into three groups. Blades were taken fromboth bipolar and unipolar cores, due to the fact thatsome of the directions of the arrowheads are single-track, while others are multi-track. All the arrow-heads between type I and type III show similaritieswith those from Göbekli Tepe (Beile-Bohn et al.1998.Abb. 22/2–7, 10–12), Nevali Çori (Schmidt1988.Abb. 14/4; 2001.52, Fig. 11.1–11) and Çayö-nü’s Grill planned phase (Coskunsu 1999.229–232,Sekil 41/d–k), Irak-Nemrik (Kozłowski 1999.Pls. III,XL), Iraq-Ginnig and Iraq-Kermez Dere (Kozłowski1999.Pls. VI, V).

‘Aswad’ type arrowheadsAt Karahan Tepe, only 2 (1%) pieces of such arrow-head type were found; one is complete, while of theother one, only the lower part remains (Fig. 21.5–6).

On the preserved proximal part of the arrowheadfrom the dorsal side, the distal part is retouchedfrom the ventral side. Blades were taken from bothbipolar flakes, due to the fact that some of the dire-ctions of the arrowheads are single-track, while someothers are multi-track. Arrowheads of such formwere found at Sanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalle (Çelik 2007.Fig. 26), on the surface at Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt1998.Abb. 4.7; 2001.53), in layer I at Nevali Çori(Schmidt 1996.Fig. 3.8; Cauvin 1994.Fig. 27.2), and

at Aswad I Aa, I Ab and II. layers (Cauvin M. C. 1995.Fig. 93.1, 2, 3, Fig. 95.1, 2, 7, Fig. 99.5; Cauvin 1994.Fig. 14.1, 2).

Unidentified arrowheadsUnidentified arrowheads are represented by 22(11%) items. Considering their blade width andthickness, they are the upper parts of either arrow-heads or spearheads, apart from one spearhead andone fragment, which is considered to be part of aspear. Apart from one, nothing is known about theirforms.

PerforatorsThere are 20 (6.8%) perforators among the finds atKarahan Tepe. Four are intact and sixteen items arebroken (Fig. 21.7–13). Some are quite large. Thehandles of all perforators are made of blade or smallbodkins. Among the other tools, the proportion ofperforators found in the second layer of GöbekliTepe is approximately 10% (Schmidt 2001.51, Fig.9; Beile-Bohn et al. 1998.59), and they show simi-larities with perforators found at Karahan Tepe.Also, similar small perforators to those found atKarahan Tepe were discovered in Çayönü’s settingsphase. The existence of perforators at Karahan Tepe,we believe, correlates with the refined bones andstone objects found at the site. Stone and bone knick-knacks made with skilled workmanship are proof ofthis.

Sickle bladesA total of 30 silica sickle blades were found (10.3%)(Fig. 22.1–6). The silica sickle blades from KarahanTepe comprise 10%. Similar silica sickle blades havebeen found in the region at Sanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalleand Sefer Tepe (Çelik 2007.Fig. 22; 2006.24). Thetotal of silica sickle blades found at Karahan Tepe is10%, while it is 41% for those found at Sanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalle. The silica sickle blades found in the

Tab. 2. Karahan Tepe flint stone finds (n = 294).


Bahattin Çelik

246

Göbekli Tepe’s second layer comprise 15% (Schmidt2001.Fig. 9), and 17.6% at Gürcütepe (Beile-Bohnet al. 1998.43), and 15.5% at Nevali Çori (Schmidt1988.169).

HammerOnly one hammer tool (0.3%) was discovered at Ka-rahan Tepe; the surface is worn from use, and oneside is broken. Similar tools have been found at allNeolithic settlements.

BurinsEight burins (2.7%) were found at Karahan Tepe(Fig. 22.7–12). Similar burins were found at NevaliÇori (Schmidt 1988.Abb. 10.2), Göbekli Tepe, Akar-çay Tepe, Çayönü, and all other Pre-Pottery Neoli-thic settlements. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B peri-od, as at the Karahan Tepe settlement, there are usu-ally burins used for pruning (Schmidt 1988.171, Fig.9.9).

End scrapersThere was a large number of end scrapers at Kara-han Tepe – a total of 40 (13.6%), 4 of which arerounded. Others were in various shapes. End scrap-ers and round end scrapers are of the same dimen-sions. Both end scrapers and round end scraperswere produced with the same technology (Fig. 23.1–10). The reason for so many finds of end scraperscould be the T-shaped pillars found in-situ at Kara-han Tepe. It is believed that end scrapers were themost appropriate tools for chiselling the pillars. Thescrapers at Göbekli Tepe’s three openings from thesecond phase, also with T-shaped pillars, comprised11.2% of all tools. (Schmidt 2001.51, Fig. 9); at San-lıurfa-Yeni Mahalle it was 6%.

Bifacial tool fragmentOne bifacial tool fragment (0.3%) was found at Ka-rahan Tepe. The length of this brown flint tool is5.2cm, while it is 4.9cm wide and 3.6cm thick; mostof the top part and a piece of the bottom part arebroken. Also, a small part of one face is unpeeled.This bifacial tool can be dated to the ‘Acheulian’ Pha-ses (Taskıran 2002.53).

Obsidian toolsThere were fifty obsidian tools (8.1%). Among these,there was one end scraper (0.3%); the others are bod-kins, small bodkins, chip pieces and waste from ma-nufacturing (Fig. 17.4–7). The sizes of the obsidianbodkins vary from 3.5 to 0.9cm in length, 3 to 0.9cmin width, and 0.9 to 0.1cm in thickness. Nine areblack, and 41 are made of translucent black obsidian.

Ground stone assemblageThere were 17 stone finds (2.75%) at Karahan Tepe.These include 4 pieces of pestles (Fig. 24.1), 7 pie-ces of adzes and cutters made of river pebble in dif-ferent forms (Fig. 24.2–3), and 6 stone vessel frag-ments, 3 of which are limestone, and the other 3chlorite. One of the 3 chlorite vessel fragments bearsa snake relief in zigzag form (Fig. 24.7–8). Similarchlorite vessel fragments were also found at HallanÇemi, Demirköy, Göbekli Tepe, Çayönü, and KörtikTepe settlements (Özkaya and San 2003.425; Çam-bel 1974.Fig. 14; Özdogan et al. 1999.Fig. 61; Ro-senberg 1994.126; Rosenberg et al. 1999.Fig. 3).

There are also 7 (1.29%) coloured stone beads and1 stone object in this group. Three of the stone beadsare in good condition, while the others are broken(Fig. 24.5–6, 9). The stone object (Fig. 24.4) is cylin-drical; similar ones were found at Ain Mallaha (Cau-vin 1972.Fig. 23.2) and Shaar-Ha-Golan settlements(Cauvin 1972.Fig. 5.1, 23.2). Cauvin regarded stoneobjects in this form as stylised human figures deri-ving from a Natufian period tradition in the Levant(Cauvin 1972.20–31).

Concluding remarks

Karahan Tepe is a single period settlement only –that is to say, in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period,like Göbekli Tepe. This feature protected the settle-ment from later ravages, so that the settlement haslasted in-situ until the present.

There are settlements contemporary with KarahanTepe from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic at Sefer Tepe,15km north, and Sanlıurfa-Yenimahalle, 63km west,and 40km west of Göbekli Tepe. The small findsfrom Karahan Tepe most closely resemble thosefrom Hamzan Tepe, Sanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalle, and Gö-bekli Tepe (Çelik 2003.37, 53; Schmidt 1998.Abb.5.4, 6.4). The pools and cavities carved on the bedrocks to the east and south of the settlement arealso similar to the pools and cavities found at Göbe-kli Tepe and Hamzan Tepe (Çelik 2000b.7; Beile-Bohn et al. 1998.Abb. 20).

Karahan Tepe’s current appearance, with pillars inthe ground, is very similar to the Göbekli Tepe II la-yer pillars. In the light of all the finds, it can be sta-ted that Karahan Tepe seems to be contemporarywith Göbekli Tepe’s upper layers and Neval Çori’sLayer III. The absence of Palmyra points and Çayö-nü tools leads us to date this settlement to the EarlyPre-Pottery Neolithic B period (Çelik 2000b.7). The


ABBES F. 1993. Méthode d’approce de la variabilité du de-bitagé laminaire, application à des armatures perçantesde Cheikh Hassan (syrie. VIIIe millénaire B.C.). Cahiersde I’Euphrate 7: 119–150.

BEILE-BOHN M., GERBER C., MORSCH M. and SCHMIDT K.1998. Frühneolithische Forschungen in Obermesopota-mien. Göbekli Tepe und Gürcütepe. Istanbuler Mitteilun-gen 48: 5–78.

CAUVIN M. C. 1995. L’industrie Lithique de Tell Aswad. InH. de Contenson, P. Anderson, M.-C. Cauvin, J. Clare et al.(eds.), Aswad et Ghoraifé. Sites Néolithiques en Dama-scéne (Syrie) aux IXème et VIIème millénaires avantl’ère chrétienne. Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient, Beyrouth: 81–122.

CAUVIN J. 1972. Religions Neolithiques de Syro-Palestine.Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient. Jean Maisonneuve, Paris.

1994. Naissance des divinitès, naissance de l’agri-culture. La révolution des symboles au Néolithique.Editions CNRS, Paris.

ÇAMBEL H. 1974. The Southeast Anatolian PrehistoricProject and its Significance for Culture and History. Bel-leten 38(151): 361–377.

ÇELIK B. 2000a. A New Early Neolithic Settlement in theCenter of Sanlıurfa, Turkey. Neo-Lithics 2(2–3): 4–6.

2000b. A New Early-Neolithic Settlement: KarahanTepe. Neo-Lithics 2(3): 6–8.

2004. A New Early-Neolithic Settlement: Hamzan Tepe.Neo-Lithics 2(4): 3–5.

2006. A New Early Neolithic Settlement in Southeast-ern Turkey: Sefer Tepe. Neo-Lithics 6(1): 23–25.

2007. Sanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalle Balıklıgöl Höyügü. In M.Özdogan and N. Basgelen (eds.), Anadolu’da Uygarlı-gın Dogusu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı, Türkiye’de Neo-litik Dönem, Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular. Arkeolojive Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul: 165–178.

2010. Hamzan Tepe in the Light of New Finds. In M.Budja (ed.), 17th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Prae-historica 37: 257–268.

COSKUNSU G. 1999. Çayönü Çanak Çömleksiz NeolitikDönem Okuçlarının Biçimsel Özelliklerine Göre Sını-flandırılması ve Çakmaktası Okuçlarının Kullanım IziAnalizi ile Islevlerinin Belirlenmesi. Istanbul Üniversi-tesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Prehi-storya Anabilim Dalı, Unpublishes Master Thesis, Istanbul.

DAI 1997. Jahresbericht 1996 des Deutschen Archäologi-schen Instituts. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1997: 507–609.

HAUPTMANN H. 1991/1992. Eine Siedlung des akerami-schen Neolithikums am mittleren Euphrat. NürnbcrgerBlätter zur Archäologie 8: 15–33.

1999. The Urfa Region. In M. Özdogan and N. Basge-len (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey, the cradle of civiliza-tion. New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Is-tanbul: 65–86.

KOZŁOWSKI S. K. (ed.) 1989–1999. Nemrik 9 – Pre-pot-tery Neolithic site in Iraq, vols. I–V. Wydawnictwa Uni-wersytetu Warszawskiego. Warsaw.

I would like to thank Mr. Nuri Okutan, Governor ofSanlıurfa, for providing opportunities on my last vi-sit to Karahan Tepe during 2011 research within thescope of the ‘Sanlıurfa Cultural Inventory Studies’Project, also supported by TUBITAK (Turkish Scienti-fic and Technological Research Council of Turkey). Ialso owe thanks to Ali Umut Türkcan for proofrea-ding and editing the paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES

∴∴

pillars in-situ on the surface at Karahan Tepe havefeatures which cannot be seen at any Neolithic set-tlement in the Sanlıurfa region. Fortunately, the pairof opposed pillars were thought by the local villa-gers to be tombs, so the villagers did not removethem or use the land for farming.

In a new visit under a survey project carried out in2011 at the settlement, a tally-like description and asnake relief with a triangular head were also disco-vered (Figs. 11 and 13). This snake relief at KarahanTepe can be compared to those found in layer III ofGöbekli Tepe, so Karahan Tepe may be contempo-rary with Layer II of Göbekli Tepe. However, it may

be possible to date this settlement back to phase Aof the Pre-Pottery Neolithic after future excavationsat Karahan Tepe.

247


Bahattin Çelik

248

KÖKSAL-SCHMIDT Ç. and SCHMIDT K. 2010. The GöbekliTepe “Totem Pole”. A First Discussion of an Autumn 2010Discovery (PPN, Southeastern Turkey). Neo-Lithics 1(10):74–76.

ÖZKAYA V. and SAN O. 2003. Körtik Tepe 2001 Kazısı.T. C. Kültür Bakanlıgı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdür-lügü 24. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 27–31 Mayıs 2002Izmir. Kültür Bakanlıgı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi. Anka-ra: 423–436.

ROSENBERG M. 1994. Hallan Çemi Tepesi: Some FurtherObservations Concerning Stratigraphy and Material Cultu-re. Anatolica 20: 121–140.

1999. Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdogan and N. Basgelen(eds.), Neolithic in Turkey, the cradle of civilization.New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istan-bul: 25–33.

SCHMIDT K. 1988. Nevali Çori: Zum Typenspectrum derSilexindustrie und der Übrigen Kleinfunde. Anatolica 15:161–201.

1995. Investigations in the Upper Mesopotamian EarlyNeolithic: Göbekli Tepe and Gürcütepe. Neo-Lithics 2(95): 9–10.

1996. Nevali Çori: Chronology and Intrasite Distribu-tion of Lithic Tool Classes. Neolithic Chipped Stone In-dustries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contempo-rariesin Adjacent Regions. Proceedings of the SecondWorkshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries. Institute

of Archaeology, Warsaw University, 3rd –7th April,1995. In. S. K. Kozłowski ve H. G. K. Gebel (eds.), Stu-dies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence,and Environment 3. Ex Oriente, Berlin: 363–376.

1998. Beyond Daily Bread: Evidence of Early NeolithicRitual from Göbekli Tepe. Neo-Lithics 2(98): 1–5.

2001. Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A prelimi-nary report on the 1995–1999 excavations. Paléorient26(1): 45–54.

2004. Frühneolithische Zeichen vom Göbekli Tepe (IlkNeolitik Göbekli Tepe Betimlemeleri). Türkiye BilimlerAkademisi arkeoloji dergisi (TÜBA-AR) 7: 93–105.

2008. Die Zähnefletschenden Raubtiere des GöbekliTepe. In D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon and F. J. Kreppner(eds.), Fundstellen Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäo-logie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honoremHartmut Kühne. Otto Harrassowitz GnBH & Co. KG,Wiesbaden: 61–68.

2010. Göbekli Tepe: the Stone Age Sanctuaries. Newresult of ongoing excavations with a special focus onsculptures and high reliefs. In M. Budja (ed.), 17th Neo-lithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 17: 239–256.

STORDEUR D., JAMMOUS B., HELMER D. and WILLCOX G.1996. Jerf el-Ahmar: a New Mureybetian Site (PPNA) onthe Middle Euphrates. Neo-Lithics 2(96): 1–2.

TASKIRAN H. 2002. El Baltaları. Arkeoatlas 1: 53.


249

Fig. 1. Karahan Tepe from the east. Fig. 2. Tektek Mountains and Harran Plain.

Fig. 3. Tektek Mountains. Fig. 4. In-situ T-shaped pillars.

Fig. 5. Small chiselled holes in the bed rock, posi-tioned side by side to form a circle.

Fig. 6. Quarry for T-shaped pillar.

Fig. 7. The pair of pillars.

Bahattin Çelik

250

Fig. 9. Snake relief.

Fig. 10 (right). T-shapedpillar with snake relief(drawing B. Çelik).

Fig. 11 (right). The newlydiscovered snake relief.

Fig. 12. Animal figures carved on a fragment of a pillar (dra-wing B. Çelik).

Fig. 8 (left). LimestoneT-shaped pillars withsnake reliefs.

Fig. 13. Tally-like description on the li-mestone rock.

a b


251

Fig. 14. Animal relief on pillar fragment.

Fig. 15. Animal relief fragment.

Fig. 16. An anthropomorphic statue with phallus(drawing B. Çelik).

Fig. 17. 1–2 bipolar cores. 3 strap blade fragment.4 obsidian end scraper. 5–7 obsidian blade frag-ments (drawing B. Çelik).

Fig. 18. 1 Byblos points type I. 2–3 type II. 4–9 typeIII (drawing B. Çelik).


Bahattin Çelik

252

Fig. 19. 1–12 Byblos points type IV (drawing B.Çelik).

Fig. 20. 1–2 Byblos points type V. 3 type VI. 8–12Nemrik points (drawing B. Çelik).

Fig. 21. 1–4 Nemrik points. 5–6 Aswad points. 7–13 perforators (drawing B. Çelik).

Fig. 22. 1–6 sickle blades. 7–12 burins (drawing B.Çelik).


253

Fig. 23. 1–10 end scrapers (drawing B. Çelik). Fig. 24. 1 pestle fragments. 2–3 fragments of adzesand cutters. 4 stone object. 5–6, 9 stone beads. 7–8stone vessel fragment (drawing B. Çelik).


Karahan Tepe

Documents

Transcript of Karahan Tepe